4 ms·

No disrespect to Ralph Nader, but cars claim about the same number of lives (more in most years) than they did then. Sure, many _many_ lives are saved by seatb

by jMyles 4y ago

No disrespect to Ralph Nader, but cars claim about the same number of lives (more in most years) than they did then. Sure, many _many_ lives are saved by seatbelts, but car-centric inner-cities combined with the psychology of invincibility for the people inside the vehicle are a recipe for dead kids in city blocks, and it's an absolute blood bath out there. Sure, there are fewer deaths per capita, and fewer deaths per mile traveled, but the chances of a fatality occurring at a given intersection haven't budged except in places where car-centric infra has been removed or scaled back.

spacemark 4y ago
I'm confused. Are you saying Nader didn't do any good thus regulation is a fool's errand?
- jMyles 4y ago
  I'm saying Nader did some good, but that regulation hasn't caused cars to stop being the most deadly threat people face in life before they age into the heart disease bracket. Or perhaps more to the point for the autonomous vehicle discussion: that no amount of hacking on the concept (which I fully support, and think is amazing and important work!), whether prompted by regulation or not, is likely to finally end the era of petro-carnage. For that, we need to stop using our tax dollars to build cities (and other roads) that are for cars first and people last.
robonerd 4y ago
I don't think a think of the children rhetoric is justified by the data. Only 18% of pedestrian deaths occur at intersections, and only 21% of pedestrian deaths occur during daylight. Of the 6205 pedestrians killed in 2019, only 424 were under the age of 20, and half of those were in the 15-20 year old bracket. The pedestrian fatality rate for adults is 10x higher than that for children (0.46 for 10-14 vs 4.6 for 55-59.) Furthermore, about a third of pedestrians killed were drunk. Telling kids to stay inside during the day seems like fear mongering, but telling them to get home before dark is probably prudent. And don't let them drink (without supervision.) https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813079 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8130...
- jMyles 4y ago
  > I don't think a think of the children rhetoric is justified by the data. I'm not a proponent of "think of the children", but I also think that urban areas in the United States are largely designed in ways that put them at substantial risk of traffic fatalities. And I think that your data don't paint the rosy picture you seem to be using them for. > Only 18% of pedestrian deaths occur at intersections, You can also say that about 1-in-5 deaths occur at what are supposed to be the safest places for pedestrians to cross roadways. I'd expect it to be far more remote if in fact intersections were designed for people instead of cars. > only 21% of pedestrian deaths occur during daylight. I'm not sure this is particularly meaningful - are we to suppose that a civilized society is one in which death can take us, arbitrarily, at night for no good reason? > Of the 6205 pedestrians killed in 2019 To be clear: this ICD code is very literal - it means people on foot. It does not include cyclists, people in mobility devices, people entering or exiting vehicles, and many other codes which are preventable by producing less car-centric infrastructure. It also does not include deaths from causes other than "traffic", such as those that occur in parking lots. > The pedestrian fatality rate for adults is 10x higher than that for children (0.46 for 10-14 vs 4.6 for 55-59.) I have no problem with the idea that adult pedestrian fatalities are a good target for reduction as well, but, as I've noted above, I can't help but notice that you (the report you cite) has focused on codes which are responsible for a higher proportion of adult deaths and which ignore substantial causes of pediatric mortality from cars. > Furthermore, about a third of pedestrians killed were drunk. I had a feeling the victim-blaming was coming. > but telling them to get home before dark is probably prudent "Prudent" is to stop subsidizing lethality by building cities for cars. Then kids can enjoy the stars without a taxpayer-subsidized death lottery for petro profit. > And don't let them drink (without supervision.) OK, yeah. That's a good one.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > You can also say that about 1-in-5 deaths occur at what are supposed to be the safest places for pedestrians to cross roadways. I'd expect it to be far more remote if in fact intersections were designed for people instead of cars. Considering way more people use crosswalks than walk across the middle of the street, only 1-in-5 pedestrian deaths occurring in a crosswalk seems like a very strong signal. Ignoring such an obvious consideration screams 'motivated reasoning'. Following the traditional road safety advice keeps kids very safe: Use the crosswalk, look both ways, be home before dark and don't get drunk. Even accounting for all the failures to follow that advice, there are still only a few hundred child pedestrian deaths a year in a country with hundreds of millions of people. Calling it an "absolute bloodbath" is just sensationalism. I think you're just trying to scare people because you have an axe to grind against car culture for other reasons.

by jMyles 4y ago

spacemark 4y ago

I'm confused. Are you saying Nader didn't do any good thus regulation is a fool's errand?

jMyles 4y ago
I'm saying Nader did some good, but that regulation hasn't caused cars to stop being the most deadly threat people face in life before they age into the heart disease bracket. Or perhaps more to the point for the autonomous vehicle discussion: that no amount of hacking on the concept (which I fully support, and think is amazing and important work!), whether prompted by regulation or not, is likely to finally end the era of petro-carnage. For that, we need to stop using our tax dollars to build cities (and other roads) that are for cars first and people last.

robonerd 4y ago

I don't think a think of the children rhetoric is justified by the data. Only 18% of pedestrian deaths occur at intersections, and only 21% of pedestrian deaths occur during daylight. Of the 6205 pedestrians killed in 2019, only 424 were under the age of 20, and half of those were in the 15-20 year old bracket. The pedestrian fatality rate for adults is 10x higher than that for children (0.46 for 10-14 vs 4.6 for 55-59.) Furthermore, about a third of pedestrians killed were drunk. Telling kids to stay inside during the day seems like fear mongering, but telling them to get home before dark is probably prudent. And don't let them drink (without supervision.) https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/813079 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8130...

jMyles 4y ago
> I don't think a think of the children rhetoric is justified by the data. I'm not a proponent of "think of the children", but I also think that urban areas in the United States are largely designed in ways that put them at substantial risk of traffic fatalities. And I think that your data don't paint the rosy picture you seem to be using them for. > Only 18% of pedestrian deaths occur at intersections, You can also say that about 1-in-5 deaths occur at what are supposed to be the safest places for pedestrians to cross roadways. I'd expect it to be far more remote if in fact intersections were designed for people instead of cars. > only 21% of pedestrian deaths occur during daylight. I'm not sure this is particularly meaningful - are we to suppose that a civilized society is one in which death can take us, arbitrarily, at night for no good reason? > Of the 6205 pedestrians killed in 2019 To be clear: this ICD code is very literal - it means people on foot. It does not include cyclists, people in mobility devices, people entering or exiting vehicles, and many other codes which are preventable by producing less car-centric infrastructure. It also does not include deaths from causes other than "traffic", such as those that occur in parking lots. > The pedestrian fatality rate for adults is 10x higher than that for children (0.46 for 10-14 vs 4.6 for 55-59.) I have no problem with the idea that adult pedestrian fatalities are a good target for reduction as well, but, as I've noted above, I can't help but notice that you (the report you cite) has focused on codes which are responsible for a higher proportion of adult deaths and which ignore substantial causes of pediatric mortality from cars. > Furthermore, about a third of pedestrians killed were drunk. I had a feeling the victim-blaming was coming. > but telling them to get home before dark is probably prudent "Prudent" is to stop subsidizing lethality by building cities for cars. Then kids can enjoy the stars without a taxpayer-subsidized death lottery for petro profit. > And don't let them drink (without supervision.) OK, yeah. That's a good one.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > You can also say that about 1-in-5 deaths occur at what are supposed to be the safest places for pedestrians to cross roadways. I'd expect it to be far more remote if in fact intersections were designed for people instead of cars. Considering way more people use crosswalks than walk across the middle of the street, only 1-in-5 pedestrian deaths occurring in a crosswalk seems like a very strong signal. Ignoring such an obvious consideration screams 'motivated reasoning'. Following the traditional road safety advice keeps kids very safe: Use the crosswalk, look both ways, be home before dark and don't get drunk. Even accounting for all the failures to follow that advice, there are still only a few hundred child pedestrian deaths a year in a country with hundreds of millions of people. Calling it an "absolute bloodbath" is just sensationalism. I think you're just trying to scare people because you have an axe to grind against car culture for other reasons.